Sign up for our Daily Newsletter and never miss a story.

When Donald Trump barks about “socialism,” he is probably thinking (and hopes that you’re thinking) of the dark, dank, and dull version that oppressed the people of the old Soviet bloc. Republican media feeds, including his, currently feature “socialist” as the preferred insult, warning that Democrats aim to transform the United States into decaying, authoritarian Venezuela.

While such dystopian visions make for scary propaganda, does anyone really believe that the Democratic Party aims to deprive us all of food and medical care? The only politicians actually trying to take those goods away from some Americans are the Trump Republicans, with their incessant campaign to slash food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.

But there are a few elected officials who describe themselves as “democratic socialists,” notably the very famous Bernie Sanders and the newly famous Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Moreover, as mainstream media coverage emphasizes daily, at least some leading Democrats have “moved left,” possibly under the influence of those socialistic politicians. Unfortunately most of those same media outlets devote little effort to dispelling the confusion inevitably created by terms that were defined for so many Americans during the Cold War against communism.

Let’s remember that during the Cold War, America’s most reliable allies included nations that were dominated by socialist parties and implemented socialist domestic policies, including variations of the health care system that we now call “Medicare for All.”

If universal medical coverage is how Republicans define “socialism,”after all, then our closest friends — including the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and all of the Nordic countries — were and are socialist. Except of course that all of those countries also have thriving private sector economies, from the pub on the corner to major multinational firms.

So perhaps socialist isn’t the most useful term, even though major political parties in those friendly countries use it to describe their outlook. Those parties also cherish democratic norms, share power with non-socialist and conservative parties, and reject the idea that the state should own or control all aspects of economic life. Perhaps that’s why many use the term “social democratic” — or democratic socialist.

So what does that mean? Social democrats use government to oversee the economy so that corporations and the wealthy are prevented from dominating and exploiting society. Social democrats demand that those who benefit most from society give back the most by means of a progressive tax system. Social democrats see health care and education as public goods that should be provided to everyone, because that benefits society as well as individuals. And social democrats view the natural environment, including breathable air and potable water, as a universal birthright for government to safeguard. Such positions tend to poll very favorably, even in capitalist America.

Indeed, there are many leading Democrats like Elizabeth Warren who forthrightly describe themselves as “capitalist,” yet advocate programs that might well be called social democratic or even socialist. These scrambled definitions become even more confusing when Republican political positions are scrutinized honestly. After all, Trump himself claimed to support Medicare, which will suddenly turn into socialism as soon as it becomes available to anyone under 65 years old. Trump has doled out billions in subsidies to farmers, just like those “socialist” countries do. And his daughter claims to support paid family leave, a benefit available to the citizens of most of those countries for many years already.

Maybe we should set aside the contradictory and confusing debate over socialism, and instead discuss how to best improve the prospects of Americans in a time of economic uncertainty and global change. That would require Republicans to abandon their timeworn scare tactics and explain how they would advance the pursuit of happiness and the common good. They might even have to come up with a new idea.

IMAGE: Photo of Democratic Socialists of America marchers by David Shankbone via Flickr

Know First.

The stories you want. The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning.

In our dark times of money-soaked, bitterly negative campaigns, however, policy discussions are being shoved aside by raw partisanship and vitriol. This not only means that good ideas are ignored, but also that downright bad ideas can become public policy without the public knowing it.

For example, one idea floating around would snuff out your Constitutional right to free speech and assembly by putting an exorbitant fee on public protests in our nation’s Capital City. In other words, you’d still be “free” to rally for or against any issue or policy — but not for free! Believe it or not, this is an actual proposal by the Trump Team. Apparently, they’re offended by all the mass demonstrations against their policies on women, immigrant children, climate change, union busting, voter suppression, Putin, the Supreme Court, etc. So they want to make each protesting group pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the government for policing and other costs associated with guaranteeing the right of Americans to rally together and speak out about public policies.

Corporations and billionaires would have no problem paying, but regular people and grassroots groups would be priced off the public lawn. Such historic protests as Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 march and his “I Have a Dream” speech couldn’t have happened under Trump’s pay-me plan.

I’m guessing that some 90 percent of Americans — Republican, Democrats and otherwise — would shout “NO!” to this repression of a fundamental civic right. But I’d also bet that not a single congressional candidate has even mentioned it to voters in this year’s elections. Worse, it’s likely that most lawmakers are not even aware of it. Yet, in perverse Orwellian language, the Trumpsters pushing the plan say that it’s “designed to provide greater clarity about how and where demonstrations can occur in a manner that protects historically important land.”

I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night! This proposal is designed to protect nothing but the bad policies of the power elites from objections by riffraff like you and me.

And if you’re wondering where Congress’ next truly bad idea will come from, keep tabs on a secretive far-right-wing group called ALEC.

The American Legislative Exchange Council runs a legislative brothel with an exclusive corporate clientele. The Koch brothers, AT&T, ExxonMobil, Pfizer, UPS and other giants pay ALEC to arrange private rendezvous between them and Republican state lawmakers who are … well, on the make. In exchange for promising to sponsor special-interest bills for the corporate johns, ALEC’s bawdyhouse of state legislators gains corporate sugar daddies to fund their future campaigns. It’s a hanky-panky quid pro quo that’s tawdry, and it has produced litter after litter of bad laws that enrich the rich, impoverish the workaday majority and destroy America’s democratic vitality.

Now comes ALEC pushing a very bad proposition that is an absolute corporate wet dream, for it would remove the people’s power to elect our United States senators, letting state legislators choose them instead. We don’t know which corporate powers are embracing this regressive, anti-democratic idea, because ALEC promises favor-seeking corporations that it will hide their identities. This maneuver to take power from the people and turn it over to for-hire legislators would return America to the days of outright auctioning off senate seats. Until the people passed the 17th Amendment in 1913, senators were named in backroom deals between corporate bribers and crooked lawmakers. ALEC’s draft proposal is bluntly succinct: “The 17th article of amendment … is hereby repealed.” Back to the future!

This idea of ripping off the people’s democratic power is being touted by such intellectual giants as Rick “Oops” Perry, the corrupt former governor of Texas who’s now turning tricks for energy conglomerates as Trump’s energy secretary. Perry wails that the 1913 law letting the public elect senators “took the states out of the process.” So now Rick and other corporate supremacists want to take the people out of the electoral process so the state can control it — the corporate state, that is.

To repeal this repeal effort by plutocratic extremists, connect with Common Cause: CommonCause.org.

Populist author, public speaker and radio commentator Jim Hightower writes “The Hightower Lowdown,” a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America’s ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at HightowerLowdown.org.